darksabre Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 *snip* Thank you for the summary. I generally agree with you on how I feel Obamas four years have gone. It's interesting that Daniels would have elected not to put a little fire in his speech. That is traditionally a conservative tactic, but maybe he felt that years of entertainment politics are having lesser effect. Interesting also that Obama chose to do the opposite.
Mr.Christopher Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 Thank you for the summary. I generally agree with you on how I feel Obamas four years have gone. It's interesting that Daniels would have elected not to put a little fire in his speech. That is traditionally a conservative tactic, but maybe he felt that years of entertainment politics are having lesser effect. Interesting also that Obama chose to do the opposite. I think the live audience has something to do with it. Daniels is speaking to a camera. Obama is speaking to a chamber with hundreds of people, many of whom share similar political views. But some sign of life from Daniels could have made it more interesting and persuasive.
X. Benedict Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 True and true. I TT'd this event, too. But, for what it's worth, TSOTUA is supposed to be just that, a summary of the "state of the Union". Not just a summary - "He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;" Sadly, it was co-opted ages ago. Probably by a democrat. :flirt: Until FDR (yes, A Democrat) it was the custom to address the congress by letter on the State of the Union before 1934. I believe every POTUS after that has addressed a joint session of Congress orally.
TrueBlueGED Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 I want to come back and address the "uneducated masses" concept. Although I know TruBlue was being sarcastic, I think it is still something worth looking at. SNIP Don't dismiss the "uneducated masses" as a problem. They have feelings and life experiences just like us, but for whatever reason they do not (or cannot) go to greater lengths to learn. They are victims of the disservice that media outlets do them. I was only being half-sarcastic ;) . Most people who don't know a lot about politics don't know much because they simply don't care enough to find out. There are certainly some who can't get more information, and they typically tend to be the very poor, who either don't have time, or don't have good access (the internet in particular). Generally speaking though, people don't care enough about politics to put forth the effort to learn. Most people don't even have opinions on specific policies...which is part of why simple arguments tend to do much better for candidates than nuanced arguments. And as I mentioned elsewhere, people don't have to be very informed to make informed decisions. Most people have a psychological attachment to one of the parties, and will simply vote party lines. I know this gets ###### on frequently as bad for democracy, in reality it's not bad because they know enough to know which party represents their individual preferences. An extremely minute portion of the voting population, if any at all, accidentally vote for the "wrong" party in this sense. With respect to the effects of media outlets, one of the absolute most interesting things about people is that the most highly politically informed are also the most partisan. From what you described, I can tell you that you are in the absolute vast minority of people who legitimately try to find out more information to balance positions and find the "correct" choice. From a psychological perspective, most people have strong predispositions and they seek out information which reinforces those predispositions. Also, when confronted with contradictory information, people will often choose to reject that information as false, or slanted, or biased. So as people seek out more and more political information, what they're really doing is seeking out information that reinforces what they already believe and by chance if they come across information that doesn't agree, they largely reject it. Those who are actually susceptible to media influences are also the least likely to receive it. They don't watch/read news, their television is limited to what interests them (see: not politics) and so they're stuck with campaign ads. However, in any competitive election the advertising environment is so filled with contradictory information, it almost washes out in a sense so that the uninformed individual really isn't influenced one way or the other. Now, if there is an asymmetrical campaign environment where one candidate spends 300% more than another, certainly there would be an effect, but in any high profile election this generally isn't the case. Biased news outlets such as MSNBC and Fox News really have no influence, because they're only speaking to those who already agree with what they say....those who would actually be influenced aren't interested in watching that type of programming So where do the uninformed get their political information? Most of them get it from either a friend or family member who actually is political informed, and they trust what they are told by that person. Edit: A simple example can illustrate why this works as it does. Take an average person who works 40-50 hours per week. Wake up and go to work, come home and do the whole dinner thing. By this point it's 6-7 at night, and if they have a family they need to dedicate a few hours to the family, do some household chores, help kids with homework, try and have fun with kids, etc. By the time the kids are in bed and responsibilities taken care of, this person probably has what, an hour or two MAX to do things before they must go to bed and restart the entire cycle. Think they want to spend what little free time they have diving into complex policy debates? No, they want to relax, or watch their favorite sports teams, or laugh at a favorite sitcom. So the average person doesn't have enough free time to truly study issues, and doesn't care to do so with the little free time they have. But they know they like the concept of low taxes or dislike unions or care deeply about abortion, so they vote Republican......or somebody believes in direct aid to the poor and a progressive tax structure, so they vote Democrat. They don't know the details of these policies, or how they work, they just know what their preferences are and know enough about politics to know which party represents their preferences (since that's all elections really are).
fan2456 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 I was only being half-sarcastic ;) . Most people who don't know a lot about politics don't know much because they simply don't care enough to find out. There are certainly some who can't get more information, and they typically tend to be the very poor, who either don't have time, or don't have good access (the internet in particular). Generally speaking though, people don't care enough about politics to put forth the effort to learn. Most people don't even have opinions on specific policies...which is part of why simple arguments tend to do much better for candidates than nuanced arguments. And as I mentioned elsewhere, people don't have to be very informed to make informed decisions. Most people have a psychological attachment to one of the parties, and will simply vote party lines. I know this gets ###### on frequently as bad for democracy, in reality it's not bad because they know enough to know which party represents their individual preferences. An extremely minute portion of the voting population, if any at all, accidentally vote for the "wrong" party in this sense. With respect to the effects of media outlets, one of the absolute most interesting things about people is that the most highly politically informed are also the most partisan. From what you described, I can tell you that you are in the absolute vast minority of people who legitimately try to find out more information to balance positions and find the "correct" choice. From a psychological perspective, most people have strong predispositions and they seek out information which reinforces those predispositions. Also, when confronted with contradictory information, people will often choose to reject that information as false, or slanted, or biased. So as people seek out more and more political information, what they're really doing is seeking out information that reinforces what they already believe and by chance if they come across information that doesn't agree, they largely reject it. Those who are actually susceptible to media influences are also the least likely to receive it. They don't watch/read news, their television is limited to what interests them (see: not politics) and so they're stuck with campaign ads. However, in any competitive election the advertising environment is so filled with contradictory information, it almost washes out in a sense so that the uninformed individual really isn't influenced one way or the other. Now, if there is an asymmetrical campaign environment where one candidate spends 300% more than another, certainly there would be an effect, but in any high profile election this generally isn't the case. Biased news outlets such as MSNBC and Fox News really have no influence, because they're only speaking to those who already agree with what they say....those who would actually be influenced aren't interested in watching that type of programming So where do the uninformed get their political information? Most of them get it from either a friend or family member who actually is political informed, and they trust what they are told by that person. Edit: A simple example can illustrate why this works as it does. Take an average person who works 40-50 hours per week. Wake up and go to work, come home and do the whole dinner thing. By this point it's 6-7 at night, and if they have a family they need to dedicate a few hours to the family, do some household chores, help kids with homework, try and have fun with kids, etc. By the time the kids are in bed and responsibilities taken care of, this person probably has what, an hour or two MAX to do things before they must go to bed and restart the entire cycle. Think they want to spend what little free time they have diving into complex policy debates? No, they want to relax, or watch their favorite sports teams, or laugh at a favorite sitcom. So the average person doesn't have enough free time to truly study issues, and doesn't care to do so with the little free time they have. But they know they like the concept of low taxes or dislike unions or care deeply about abortion, so they vote Republican......or somebody believes in direct aid to the poor and a progressive tax structure, so they vote Democrat. They don't know the details of these policies, or how they work, they just know what their preferences are and know enough about politics to know which party represents their preferences (since that's all elections really are). And so we , who have little time rely on the fourth estate. We expect fact in straight news stories. Alas, that no longer exits. We have the main stream media and CNN, MSNBC interjecting their opinions and slant in a democratic bias. We have FOX throwing out the republican slant. Thus, our job becomes much harder. We now have to discern what is factual and straight news from opinion. We receive opinionated news and no facts! Journalists are really low on the respectability scale IMO. It takes even more work to figure out the truth! MY physician is held to the hippocratic oath, what measuer is a journalist held to? Are they governed by the board of regents or any laws? I think not.
... Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 So where do the uninformed get their political information? Most of them get it from either a friend or family member who actually is political informed, and they trust what they are told by that person. Before I address the quoted above, I want to address a few small issues of semantics. "Politics" and "issues" are not synonymous. And "politics" are not "civics". "Politics" is generally used as an umbrella term, and, in my opinion, its fluidity can be confusing. I think that's illustrated by the way the term is used not only in TrueBluePhD's post, but in general discourse these days (most of which occurs online). I think, even these days, most people understand basic American civics - party system and you vote for a representative. "Politics" involve the dynamics within and between the parties and individuals, and their relationship with the issues. Politics is the "who" and "why" of civics and the issues. The issues are the "what". So, the so-called "uneducated" are who? People who don't have a grasp of basic civics? People unfamiliar with the parties or politicians? Or people who are unfamiliar with the issues? The people who can't spell "Connolly"? Are the so-called "uneducated" also people not able to synthesize the issues with facts and reason, but still are familiar with the parties and the issues? The reason I'm going here is because there are people who like to throw out the label "uneducated masses", or "the uneducated", or whatever similar combination you want. I want to know what "they" mean by this. Having once been a person to use that terminology loosely, I, frankly, think those who throw it out there without an explicit definition are refusing to look into the mirror. Are we suggesting the American system is too hard for people to grasp? I would counter than by saying even monkeys can grasp the concept of choosing an item you like an selecting it via some medium (in this case, a ballot). Are we suggesting there are people who lack a firm grasp of ALL of the issues bundled into an election? Well, I defy anyone to have that much information at hand at any one time. This is why we have books, why professors are not generalists, and why people can sell their "skills and knowledge" on the job market. But suppose we can grasp a significant percentage of the issues at hand - well then are we suggesting that after understanding the issues, are the "uneducated" people who have come to the "wrong" conclusions? And who is to make that determination? Or, rather, who are YOU to determine what the correct conclusion should be? I think the so-called "uneducated" is a defensive term used to pigeon-hole those who do not vote the way we want them to. You can take it from there how such a person is defined: "uneducated" because they watch Fox News, "uneducated" because they vote the way their union tells them to, "uneducated" because they fall for Obama's reverb-drenched voice in a Hollywood-designed backdrop, "uneducated" because they agree with the likes of Limbaugh, Levin, and Hannity. Etc., etc. In conclusion, let's be careful with the "uneducated" - because the "uneducated" are actually all of us TO most of us. Politics are an exercise in philosophy - and despite the ejaculations of countless Philosophy departments world-wide, the practical applications of philosophy are ultimately personal and subjective. Relatedly, to say the uninformed get their information from the "actually...political(ly) informed" is too generous, and, of course, too suggestive. The "actually...political(ly) informed" may be, in reality, as "uneducated" or uninformed as the person asking, the former just thinks they are informed.
K-9 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 Before I address the quoted above, I want to address a few small issues of semantics. "Politics" and "issues" are not synonymous. And "politics" are not "civics". "Politics" is generally used as an umbrella term, and, in my opinion, its fluidity can be confusing. I think that's illustrated by the way the term is used not only in TrueBluePhD's post, but in general discourse these days (most of which occurs online). I think, even these days, most people understand basic American civics - party system and you vote for a representative. "Politics" involve the dynamics within and between the parties and individuals, and their relationship with the issues. Politics is the "who" and "why" of civics and the issues. The issues are the "what". So, the so-called "uneducated" are who? People who don't have a grasp of basic civics? People unfamiliar with the parties or politicians? Or people who are unfamiliar with the issues? The people who can't spell "Connolly"? Are the so-called "uneducated" also people not able to synthesize the issues with facts and reason, but still are familiar with the parties and the issues? The reason I'm going here is because there are people who like to throw out the label "uneducated masses", or "the uneducated", or whatever similar combination you want. I want to know what "they" mean by this. Having once been a person to use that terminology loosely, I, frankly, think those who throw it out there without an explicit definition are refusing to look into the mirror. Are we suggesting the American system is too hard for people to grasp? I would counter than by saying even monkeys can grasp the concept of choosing an item you like an selecting it via some medium (in this case, a ballot). Are we suggesting there are people who lack a firm grasp of ALL of the issues bundled into an election? Well, I defy anyone to have that much information at hand at any one time. This is why we have books, why professors are not generalists, and why people can sell their "skills and knowledge" on the job market. But suppose we can grasp a significant percentage of the issues at hand - well then are we suggesting that after understanding the issues, are the "uneducated" people who have come to the "wrong" conclusions? And who is to make that determination? Or, rather, who are YOU to determine what the correct conclusion should be? I think the so-called "uneducated" is a defensive term used to pigeon-hole those who do not vote the way we want them to. You can take it from there how such a person is defined: "uneducated" because they watch Fox News, "uneducated" because they vote the way their union tells them to, "uneducated" because they fall for Obama's reverb-drenched voice in a Hollywood-designed backdrop, "uneducated" because they agree with the likes of Limbaugh, Levin, and Hannity. Etc., etc. In conclusion, let's be careful with the "uneducated" - because the "uneducated" are actually all of us TO most of us. Politics are an exercise in philosophy - and despite the ejaculations of countless Philosophy departments world-wide, the practical applications of philosophy are ultimately personal and subjective. Relatedly, to say the uninformed get their information from the "actually...political(ly) informed" is too generous, and, of course, too suggestive. The "actually...political(ly) informed" may be, in reality, as "uneducated" or uninformed as the person asking, the former just thinks they are informed. Outstanding post. And also a great lesson on why "all politics is local." Well done. GO SABRES!!!
fan2456 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 Before I address the quoted above, I want to address a few small issues of semantics. "Politics" and "issues" are not synonymous. And "politics" are not "civics". "Politics" is generally used as an umbrella term, and, in my opinion, its fluidity can be confusing. I think that's illustrated by the way the term is used not only in TrueBluePhD's post, but in general discourse these days (most of which occurs online). I think, even these days, most people understand basic American civics - party system and you vote for a representative. "Politics" involve the dynamics within and between the parties and individuals, and their relationship with the issues. Politics is the "who" and "why" of civics and the issues. The issues are the "what". So, the so-called "uneducated" are who? People who don't have a grasp of basic civics? People unfamiliar with the parties or politicians? Or people who are unfamiliar with the issues? The people who can't spell "Connolly"? Are the so-called "uneducated" also people not able to synthesize the issues with facts and reason, but still are familiar with the parties and the issues? The reason I'm going here is because there are people who like to throw out the label "uneducated masses", or "the uneducated", or whatever similar combination you want. I want to know what "they" mean by this. Having once been a person to use that terminology loosely, I, frankly, think those who throw it out there without an explicit definition are refusing to look into the mirror. Are we suggesting the American system is too hard for people to grasp? I would counter than by saying even monkeys can grasp the concept of choosing an item you like an selecting it via some medium (in this case, a ballot). Are we suggesting there are people who lack a firm grasp of ALL of the issues bundled into an election? Well, I defy anyone to have that much information at hand at any one time. This is why we have books, why professors are not generalists, and why people can sell their "skills and knowledge" on the job market. But suppose we can grasp a significant percentage of the issues at hand - well then are we suggesting that after understanding the issues, are the "uneducated" people who have come to the "wrong" conclusions? And who is to make that determination? Or, rather, who are YOU to determine what the correct conclusion should be? I think the so-called "uneducated" is a defensive term used to pigeon-hole those who do not vote the way we want them to. You can take it from there how such a person is defined: "uneducated" because they watch Fox News, "uneducated" because they vote the way their union tells them to, "uneducated" because they fall for Obama's reverb-drenched voice in a Hollywood-designed backdrop, "uneducated" because they agree with the likes of Limbaugh, Levin, and Hannity. Etc., etc. In conclusion, let's be careful with the "uneducated" - because the "uneducated" are actually all of us TO most of us. Politics are an exercise in philosophy - and despite the ejaculations of countless Philosophy departments world-wide, the practical applications of philosophy are ultimately personal and subjective. Relatedly, to say the uninformed get their information from the "actually...political(ly) informed" is too generous, and, of course, too suggestive. The "actually...political(ly) informed" may be, in reality, as "uneducated" or uninformed as the person asking, the former just thinks they are informed. AS to your premise that most understand basic civics. Would love to see a poll asking what branch of government actually makes laws. I'd think it would be informative. I think that is 4th grade social studies. And frankly, it has little if anything to do with how to properly spell someone's last name. Hell, our favorite announcer can't say Kassian's name!
K-9 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 AS to your premise that most understand basic civics. Would love to see a poll asking what barnch of government actually makes laws. I'd think it would be informative. I think that is 4th grade social studies. I think everybody know that's the lobbying branch. GO SABRES!!!
Weave Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 I think everybody know that's the lobbying branch. GO SABRES!!! Well played.
fan2456 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 I think everybody know that's the lobbying branch. GO SABRES!!! Touche!!! :worthy: As an aside, how do you do a partial quote?
MattPie Posted January 26, 2012 Report Posted January 26, 2012 Choosing who to vote for as a Presidential candidate generally involves decision making based on how that candidate appeals to those guiding factors. Does the candidate speak to your financial situation? Do you have a social group in common (race, income class, or even personal interests)? Was the candidate's past similar to yours, or in some way respectable to you? I knew a person (in 2004, I think) that picked a candidate based on if she'd want to hang out with his wife. Far be it for me to judge, but.... So, the so-called "uneducated" are who? People who don't have a grasp of basic civics? People unfamiliar with the parties or politicians? Or people who are unfamiliar with the issues? I think the most egregious example in recent memory are the people challenging President Obama's citizenship. I just don't know how to explain them. Any person born to an parent who is a US citizen or on American soil is a natural-born US citizen. President Obama's mother was born in Kansas, he could have been born on Mars and he'd still be an natural-born citizen. What I can't figure out is whether they don't know this or they're willfully ignoring it. On top of that, John McCain was born in Panama, FFS. I can't think of a good example on the left off-hand, but I'm sure there is one. Someone help me out? But, in either case, I think it plays into the above that people *do* find ways to read or see stuff with a bias that reinforces their current beliefs. I know I do it. I've had long discussions with a local fan about whether the Campbell-Umberger hit was clean or not. We look at the same video and see different things. People will watch the same game and see different things, read the same article and note different points, or listen to the same address and come off with a different impression. It's just human nature. Touche!!! :worthy: As an aside, how do you do a partial quote? Start the post with full quote as usual, and cut out the bits you don't want. EDIT: Oh, that's really interesting: I responded to the first two posts, then hit quote for the third, and the board automatically inserted the thrid quote into my existing post. I assume that only works if I'm the last post in the thread.
TrueBlueGED Posted January 26, 2012 Report Posted January 26, 2012 Before I address the quoted above, I want to address a few small issues of semantics. "Politics" and "issues" are not synonymous. And "politics" are not "civics". "Politics" is generally used as an umbrella term, and, in my opinion, its fluidity can be confusing. I think that's illustrated by the way the term is used not only in TrueBluePhD's post, but in general discourse these days (most of which occurs online). I think, even these days, most people understand basic American civics - party system and you vote for a representative. "Politics" involve the dynamics within and between the parties and individuals, and their relationship with the issues. Politics is the "who" and "why" of civics and the issues. The issues are the "what". So, the so-called "uneducated" are who? People who don't have a grasp of basic civics? People unfamiliar with the parties or politicians? Or people who are unfamiliar with the issues? The people who can't spell "Connolly"? Are the so-called "uneducated" also people not able to synthesize the issues with facts and reason, but still are familiar with the parties and the issues? The reason I'm going here is because there are people who like to throw out the label "uneducated masses", or "the uneducated", or whatever similar combination you want. I want to know what "they" mean by this. Having once been a person to use that terminology loosely, I, frankly, think those who throw it out there without an explicit definition are refusing to look into the mirror. Are we suggesting the American system is too hard for people to grasp? I would counter than by saying even monkeys can grasp the concept of choosing an item you like an selecting it via some medium (in this case, a ballot). Are we suggesting there are people who lack a firm grasp of ALL of the issues bundled into an election? Well, I defy anyone to have that much information at hand at any one time. This is why we have books, why professors are not generalists, and why people can sell their "skills and knowledge" on the job market. But suppose we can grasp a significant percentage of the issues at hand - well then are we suggesting that after understanding the issues, are the "uneducated" people who have come to the "wrong" conclusions? And who is to make that determination? Or, rather, who are YOU to determine what the correct conclusion should be? I think the so-called "uneducated" is a defensive term used to pigeon-hole those who do not vote the way we want them to. You can take it from there how such a person is defined: "uneducated" because they watch Fox News, "uneducated" because they vote the way their union tells them to, "uneducated" because they fall for Obama's reverb-drenched voice in a Hollywood-designed backdrop, "uneducated" because they agree with the likes of Limbaugh, Levin, and Hannity. Etc., etc. In conclusion, let's be careful with the "uneducated" - because the "uneducated" are actually all of us TO most of us. Politics are an exercise in philosophy - and despite the ejaculations of countless Philosophy departments world-wide, the practical applications of philosophy are ultimately personal and subjective. Relatedly, to say the uninformed get their information from the "actually...political(ly) informed" is too generous, and, of course, too suggestive. The "actually...political(ly) informed" may be, in reality, as "uneducated" or uninformed as the person asking, the former just thinks they are informed. If you want technical definitions, experts don't use "uneducated" to describe voters. There is generally a distinction made between "high information" and "low information" voters, and this is typically determined through a series of factual questions on a survey (who the president is and his party, who their representative is and their party, who controls Congress, etc.). The reason that stuff like this gets jumbled together is a lot of it is very highly correlated. High information voters also tend to have at least a bachelor's degree, enjoy a higher socioeconomic status and they also tend to watch more news. Low information voters tend to have a high school diploma or less, be on the low end of the socioeconomic scale, and don't watch much if any news. You are correct in that knowing ABOUT issues and where politicians stand on them does not necessarily imply a fundamental understanding of how different policies will affect said issues. And frankly if we were to use this as a definition of educated, nobody would be educated or informed on issues. Not even experts who have studies particular issues their entire lives have a consensus...there's a reason there are policy specialists, policy analysis think tanks, liberal think tanks, conservative think tanks, etc. There's a reason that economics is considered a social science. So no, even high information voters don't have a deep understanding of some of the issues, but they do know the important things such as what the issues are, and what candidates/parties stand for which side of the debate. And frankly, that's all they need to fulfill their role of as democratic citizens. Voters don't need to understand the inner workings of the economy or foreign policy to know fundamental principles that they believe in, and support candidates with similar principles. Even the small percentage of the electorate which essentially throws darts at the ballot to decide their vote don't matter, they don't influence elections because their actions are largely random and when considering the election as a whole, the randomness will go both for and against candidates equally and cancel out in the aggregate. Just because some individuals may know nothing and vote based on nothing, the aggregate electorate does know things. The old saying "the person is intelligent, people are stupid" (or something like that) is actually reversed in elections: the person may be stupid, but the people are not. So when I say that the politically uninformed get their information from the politically informed, I mean informed in the sense of knowing the parties, candidates, and issues. I don't mean they know how issues and policies interact or have even the slightest grasp of international relations theory or how the global economy functions...nor should they, because even the politicians themselves do not know this (there's a reason they consult experts, why experts testify before Congress, and yes...even why special interests and lobbyists play an important role in the legislative process). Edit: The final point I wanted to make was, politics is all about values. Everything is a value judgment. There is no one policy choice that will quickly drop unemployment to 5%, or fix our education system. It's like in physics where "every action has an equal and opposite reaction"....well in the policy space the reaction may not be equal, but there is a reaction. Every policy has consequences, some good some bad, some anticipated some unanticipated. Deciding what is good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable, is all about values....and obviously different people value different things. Everybody wants a strong economy, but not everybody agrees how to get there. Why? Because there is no one proven way to do it. In fact, different policies may achieve the same outcome but with different consequences along the way. One economic example of this is free trade. On a global scale, free trade is more efficient than having a system of tariffs and a bunch of trade wars going on, and it allows each country to specialize in their comparative advantages. However there are domestic consequences because there isn't a perfect mobility of labor, job skills can become obsolete faster than society can retrain, and this can result in temporary spikes in unemployment as well as have an impact on wealth distribution. Is this okay? Is it not okay? That is ENTIRELY dependent on values. Some would gladly bite the bullet and deal with consequences as generational replacement fixes them over 20 years or whatever it takes (totally pulled the number out my ass), while others would rather have some more global inefficiency of it meant a better diversity of jobs available. Neither person is "right" because it's just a value judgment...the same way that elections are value judgments.
darksabre Posted January 26, 2012 Report Posted January 26, 2012 TrueBlue and Sizz, excellent posts by both of you. Where this discussion on the "uneducated" leads me is that for me I would like to be able to discuss issues with the people who bring them up without receiving rhetoric and canned responses. You can tell when someone doesn't know what they're talking about, yet they will combat you on it anyway. For me it is frustrating, because I want others to try to understand, to show me that they've done some legwork. I have no problem with individuals voting how they feel. That to me is the point of democracy. But I will not hesitate to open debate with individuals who I feel do not have a grasp on the issues they are supposedly so passionate about. Individuals who aggravatedly praise a politician or an ideal without understanding the underlying complexities. It could be because the individuals that I have the most issue with are the ones who I expect to be better informed. College colleagues, the higher educated, etc. If there's one thing this forum has taught me it is that if you have something combative to say, you better be prepared to back it up. And I find that those who are the most combative also tend to be the least prepared.
TrueBlueGED Posted January 26, 2012 Report Posted January 26, 2012 TrueBlue and Sizz, excellent posts by both of you. Where this discussion on the "uneducated" leads me is that for me I would like to be able to discuss issues with the people who bring them up without receiving rhetoric and canned responses. You can tell when someone doesn't know what they're talking about, yet they will combat you on it anyway. For me it is frustrating, because I want others to try to understand, to show me that they've done some legwork. I have no problem with individuals voting how they feel. That to me is the point of democracy. But I will not hesitate to open debate with individuals who I feel do not have a grasp on the issues they are supposedly so passionate about. Individuals who aggravatedly praise a politician or an ideal without understanding the underlying complexities. It could be because the individuals that I have the most issue with are the ones who I expect to be better informed. College colleagues, the higher educated, etc. If there's one thing this forum has taught me it is that if you have something combative to say, you better be prepared to back it up. And I find that those who are the most combative also tend to be the least prepared. Totally agree...it doesn't really bother me when somebody doesn't know a lot, so long as they don't try to pretend they do. Canned talking point responses are the absolute worst. This is of course why I try to avoid talking politics, specifically policy. Even with my multiple walls of text here, people should notice I'm not talking about which party is better or who I believe will do the best job or any of that, I'm trying to stick strictly to the system itself and how voters behave.
darksabre Posted January 26, 2012 Report Posted January 26, 2012 Totally agree...it doesn't really bother me when somebody doesn't know a lot, so long as they don't try to pretend they do. Canned talking point responses are the absolute worst. This is of course why I try to avoid talking politics, specifically policy. And it's the reason why most political discussions quickly degrade. When too many people have opinions but no idea how to argue them, you get a conversational fist fight. For me it is that type of individual that I am most afraid of because I know that not only do they vote, but that they also aren't sure why. That is far more dangerous than voting with your gut.
fan2456 Posted January 26, 2012 Report Posted January 26, 2012 And it's the reason why most political discussions quickly degrade. When too many people have opinions but no idea how to argue them, you get a conversational fist fight. For me it is that type of individual that I am most afraid of because I know that not only do they vote, but that they also aren't sure why. That is far more dangerous than voting with your gut. Voting with one’s gut has merit, if one has the opportunity for discourse and interaction with a candidate on a one-to-one basis. I form impressions on an individual within minutes after meeting them, and am more often right than wrong. Do I make mistakes? Of course, and I am honest enough to admit it. However, there are no bigger chameleons on this earth than politicians, and few if any of us have the opportunity for face-to face evaluation. I have a great deal of difficulty trusting my gut based upon advertisements and the nightly news.
FogBat Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 and I think TSOTUA is a big waste of time. Two long campaign speeches. Nothing more. I couldn't agree more. I've been glancing through eveyrone's responses on this thread. There have been some pretty good analyses (plural) on what's wrong. They appear to be mostly describing the symptoms. However, unless I missed something, there's one thing that NO ONE addressed on why this country is in such a mess: bad theology. It's been going on for decades. What comes from most of the pulpits spills over to the laypeople, and eventually the ballot box. Now, I know that there are some people here who do not classify themselves as being "religious." However, even then, they do have a theology of their own - even if they are agnostics or atheists. As I heard one incredibly astute preacher say recently, "It is impossible to divorce theology from politics."
Eleven Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 I couldn't agree more. I've been glancing through eveyrone's responses on this thread. There have been some pretty good analyses (plural) on what's wrong. They appear to be mostly describing the symptoms. However, unless I missed something, there's one thing that NO ONE addressed on why this country is in such a mess: bad theology. It's been going on for decades. What comes from most of the pulpits spills over to the laypeople, and eventually the ballot box. Now, I know that there are some people here who do not classify themselves as being "religious." However, even then, they do have a theology of their own - even if they are agnostics or atheists. As I heard one incredibly astute preacher say recently, "It is impossible to divorce theology from politics." It has been going on for decades. Mostly through the Republican party. It's the only reason I won't vote Republican: bad theology. God loves, not hates. As soon as the Republicans get this through their hateful brains, they might get a vote from me.
FogBat Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 It has been going on for decades. Mostly through the Republican party. It's the only reason I won't vote Republican: bad theology. God loves, not hates. As soon as the Republicans get this through their hateful brains, they might get a vote from me. This has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. If you really want to get down to brass tacks, you can thank people like Charles Finney for the mess we're in. The heretical teachings he spawned have snowballed ever since he made his presence known in the Northeast - including the Buffalo area (which is why I've wondered if there's something in the water in WNY). In spite of his bad theology, there are people still touting his garbage. Even Jerry Falwell thought highly of him. I took a class on American Fundamentalism, and there's been a clear divide ever since before the days of Harry Emerson Fosdick (who was certainly no friend of scriptural inerrancy). Both the "liberals" and the "conservatives" have been at each other for quite some time - even when it comes to theology. There was once a day and age when good theology came from the pulpits and largely remained uncontested. Men like Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Asahel Nettleton clearly communicated the Gospel. Those days are largely gone; and with the ascent of people like Joel Osteen, TD Jakes, and John Shelby Spong, it's looking really depressing right now. That's why I said what I said about bad theology. As for your statement, "God loves, not hates," read what Arthur W. Pink said in the following, "A study of the concordance will show that there are more references in Scripture to the anger, fury, and wrath of God, than there are to His love and tenderness. Because God is holy, He hates all sin; and because He hates all sin, His anger burns against the sinner (Ps. 7:11)." I do not care whether someone has a D or an R affixed to their names. That observation and statement is about as cut and dry as it gets. Good theology could have kept us out of this mess. Bad theology is what got us here.
shrader Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 As for your statement, "God loves, not hates," read what Arthur W. Pink said in the following, "A study of the concordance will show that there are more references in Scripture to the anger, fury, and wrath of God, than there are to His love and tenderness. Because God is holy, He hates all sin; and because He hates all sin, His anger burns against the sinner (Ps. 7:11)." I do not care whether someone has a D or an R affixed to their names. That observation and statement is about as cut and dry as it gets. But did you read the second half? Like most things, the ending's kind of important.
NowDoYouBelieve Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 Most people, myself included, agree that there is a profound lack of leaders currently sitting in positions of leadership. But I have a question to somewhat turn that idea on its head...given America's well-earned distrust for those who seek power, are we even willing to be led?
SwampD Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 I hate the term "leaders". I don't need to be led. Don't we elect representatives?
NowDoYouBelieve Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 Fair enough. Are Americans willing to be represented by a quality representative without assuming that he/she is tainted by the very token of being in politics?
Eleven Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 I hate the term "leaders". I don't need to be led. Don't we elect representatives? Never thought of it that way before. Amen.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.